Talk:History and use of instant-runoff voting

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Start‑class Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Instant-runoff voting was copied or moved into History and use of instant-runoff voting with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Why was IRV/STV abandoned in the past?

In historical cases where IRV or STV have been tried then abandoned, why was it abandoned? What problems occurred, who did not like it and why? E.g.: "The Northern Ireland Parliament continued to use the combination until the late 1920s when it switched to the 'first past the post' plurality system" -- why? DBrnstn 14:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shhhhh.... Don't ask! (whisper) politics.... I'd guess. Someone could and should do the research.

It is political, largely because the introduction of STV was never popular with the Unionists who controlled the Parliament (under whatever voting system) for its entire history. Contrary to myth it wasn't abolished to restrict the Nationalist voting/Catholic part of the population but instead in response to challenges to the Unionists from other sources such as Independent Unionists and the Labour Party who both won seats off the Unionists in 1925. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is some information on the initiative that rescinded Preferential Voting in Ann Arbor, MI. Basically, the Republicans lost the mayor's office because the Democrats and a progressive party stopped splitting the vote by implementing PV, so they ran an initiative campaign, special election with low attendance, I think, and killed it. Probably similar reasons existed for getting rid of Bucklin voting in various states. Proportional representation was dumped in New York because, horrors, it was electing a few BLACKS and COMMIES! What else would you expect? --Abd (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation as well - plurality holds sway because it usually gives advantage to those who already have the power. And YES - definitely worth getting more history here! (AND FairVote has done more on that regard (for U.S.) than any other source I know.) At least one page here - [1]. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is IRV not Described or Linked to??

It's really quite remarkable: the article manages to get through many sections without actually describing what IRV is! And not a link to any other wikipedia article either. I would not have thought it possible to write an article on "The history of X" without actually saying what X is, and yet, here it is. Chafe66 (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's linked in the introduction. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article badly needs a write-up of Australia and also more on Papua New Guinea and Fiji

The glaring hole in this article is the 80-year history of IRV in Australia and recent uses in Papua New Guinea and Fiji. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RRichie (talk • contribs) 22:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This remains true as of May 2011. I'll put in a couple links, but some Aussie should jump in...RRichie (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Instant-runoff_voting#Global_use

I vote in favor Instant-runoff_voting#Global_use should be merged into this article. Most of the info is already here and it will clear redundancy. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 20:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Table of uses

Hello – there was formerly a table of uses of ‘ranked voting’ in the ranked voting article, but except for IRV it duplicated information in the pages for specific ranked voting methods. It’s best to avoid needless duplication, and the table was unwanted padding in its previous location, so I’ve preserved the IRV entries by copying them to the present article. However I am aware that there is overlap with the running prose. I was hoping that the people who maintain this page would decide whether they wanted discursive or tabular presentation or a mixture of both. Colin.champion (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Undisclosed Payments Tag

I don't see any evidence of this having occurred, and the content of the article seems fine. If nothing compelling is provided I am going to remove the tag. Affinepplan (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

removed. Affinepplan (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]